Hubble relation to Scale Factor

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of a constant Hubble parameter in cosmology, specifically using the equation H(t) = \dot{a}/a to derive the scale factor a(t). The analysis reveals that if H = 70 km/s/Mpc, the scale factor 14 billion years ago would be approximately 2.72 times smaller than today, suggesting the Universe was about one third its current size. However, this raises questions about the consistency of Hubble time across cosmic epochs, leading to the conclusion that the Friedmann Equations should be utilized for accurate modeling rather than relying solely on the Hubble parameter.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Hubble parameter and its significance in cosmology
  • Familiarity with the Friedmann Equations in cosmological models
  • Basic knowledge of exponential functions and their applications in physics
  • Concept of the Cosmological Constant (Λ) and its role in universe expansion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Friedmann Equations to understand their derivation and implications in cosmology
  • Explore the concept of the Cosmological Constant (Λ) and its effects on the universe's expansion
  • Learn about the de Sitter universe and its characteristics related to constant Hubble parameters
  • Investigate the relationship between scale factors and cosmic time in various cosmological models
USEFUL FOR

Students of cosmology, astrophysicists, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of the universe's expansion and the implications of a constant Hubble parameter.

TheMercury79
Messages
24
Reaction score
5
TL;DR
Comparing sizes now and then
Imagine a Universe where the Hubble parameter is truly a constant, in both space and time.
How much smaller would such a Universe be 14 billion years ago compared to today?

Using the Hubble parameter in terms of scale factor: ##H(t) = \frac{\dot{a}}{a}## leads to
the differential equation: $$\frac{da}{dt}=a~H(t)$$
Solivng for the scale factor yields an exponential growth relation:$$a(t) = a(0)e^{Ht}$$

(##H(t) = H## since H is constant in this Universe and so it's not necessary to use the Hubble parameter
as a function of time)

If we use ##H = 70 kms^-1Mpc^-1##, current time ##t=14\times10^9~y## and initial time 14 Gy ago is ##t_0=0##, then$$\\$$
##Ht = 70~kms^{-1}~Mpc^{-1} * \frac{1}{3.09\times10^{19}}~Mpc~km^{-1} * (3600 * 24 *365.25 * 14\times10^9)~s##

This makes ##Ht## roughly equal to 1 and ##a(14)\approx a(0)e^1##
Therefore $$a(14)\approx 2.72a(0)$$

This, however, seems like a really small number, indicating the Universe was about one third of its current size
14 billion years ago for a "Constant Hubble Universe"
Also a value of 70 for the Hubble parameter corresponds to a Hubble time of 14 billion years. And if H(t) is constant then 14 billion years ago would have the same Hubble time of 14 billion years, it can't be one third of the current size and have the same Hubble time, shouldn't this Hubble time be zero 14 billion years ago?

Something(s) doesn't add upp in my approach and I'm trying to think of where I'm off
 
Space news on Phys.org
Well I think your beginning is wrong. You should derive the scale factor ##a(t)## from the Friedmann Equations. Not by using only $$H = \dot{a} / a$$.

From my knowledge, the only close thing that does look like your solution is universe with lambda only which has a scale factor of
$$a(t) = e^{H_0t}$$ however here $$H_0 = \sqrt{\frac{8 \pi G ε_Λ} {3c^2}} = \sqrt{Λ/3}$$

(Also called de Sitter universe)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TheMercury79
TheMercury79 said:
Imagine a Universe where the Hubble parameter is truly a constant, in both space and time.
##H = const## means that the universe is expanding exponentially. It's the case if the Cosmological Constant ##\Lambda > 0## and the matter density ##\rho = 0##, which is expected for the very far future of our universe.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TheMercury79
I feel kinda stupid now, The Friedmann equations is in the next chapter. I was under the impression this should be solved with contents of the current chapter. But I see now I've read the curriculum wrong.
I have a full time job and taking this course on the side is really stressful. I just knew I was totally off on this.
Tnx for answers.EDIT: Actually I see now I haven't read the curriculum wrong. It's just not very clear, one place says this and that chapter, another place it says only this chapter. Huh
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Arman777

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K